It was quite simply a knockout performance by the Republican challenger. Or, as Notre Dame professor and political observer Robert Schmuhl put it, “Romney gets a gold medal, and Obama wasn’t even in the same competition.”

Schmuhl, a professor of American studies and the author of “Statecraft and Stagecraft: American Political Life in the Age of Personality,” told me that, on optics alone, the victor was clear:

“All one had to do on Wednesday night is turn down the volume and study the body language of the two figures. After a short period of time, there was no comparison in terms of performance.”

What we have before us in these debates is an almost archetypal confrontation – between a man who was and is an exceptionally good father and a man who was deserted by his.

Good fathering is the story of Mitt Romney’s life. He has five sons who are, by all accounts, devoted to him and vice-versa. These boys grew up with a father who, although wealthy and successful, worked like a demon, doted on them, and apparently devoted an extraordinary amount of time to charitable work, in which he also involved them. Indeed, I’ve never heard of a politician who did anything quite like it.

Almost the polar opposite, Barack Obama’s father abandoned him twice and then ended up an irresponsible drunken victim of multiple car crashes. This sad behavior precipitated a search by Obama that brought him in contact with several father surrogates, notably Frank Marshall Davis and Jeremiah Wright, that it would be hard to brand as anywhere near satisfactory. (Davis was a pornographer and about Wright the less said the better.) No Mitt Romneys there.

Only days after Michael Savage ended his relationship with the Talk Radio Network, his “Savage Nation” has been ranked the No. 1 talk show on the Internet for the third quarter.

After consistently winning the No. 2 spot, Savage now has surpassed Rush Limbaugh, according to TalkStreamLive.com.

“We have watched Michael consistently grow his audience over the last several quarters,” TalkStreamLive.com said in its report of the top 25 shows on the ‘Net. “All of his numbers are way up, especially via mobile and social radio.”

As ◼ WND reported, Savage announced Thursday he won his federal lawsuit against the Talk Radio Network via arbitration, which makes him a free agent.

Savage’s lawyer, Daniel Horowitz, told WND that Savage will not be on radio until he signs a contract with a new syndicator.

“Within an hour of knowing he was free, we were already talking to top names in the business,” Horowitz said.

A new poll shows Mitt Romney flipping a 5-point deficit in Colorado before the first presidential debate, which was held on Wednesday in Denver, to a 3.5-point advantage later in the week — another signal that Mr. Romney's comparatively strong debate performance has started to translate into rising poll numbers for the Republican.

"If you want to go to this hugely important and interesting event you have to register with the campaign," said political science professor Donald Downs. "That raises questions."

Downs was joined by law professor Ann Althouse and political science professor Ken Mayer in raising concerns. Mayer sent a letter outlining four concerns to university administrators on Wednesday. Althouse later shared it with instapundit.com, a conservative-leaning blog run by a Texas law professor.

...(A) day after Obama’s lackluster debate performance, the president’s bad fortune continued: Though the crowd and the president showed up, the national press corps did not. Because of a mix-up at the Denver airport, the press corps’ charter plane was delayed about half an hour en route to Madison, Wis., and failed to arrive on time....

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what career officers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa....

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism....

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad....

...numbers reflect quite a debate bounce for Romney. Heading into Wednesday’s showdown, it was the president who enjoyed a two-point advantage. Today is the first time Romney has been ahead by even a single point since mid-September. See daily tracking history. As with all bounces, it remains to be seen whether it is a temporary blip or signals a lasting change in the race.

Both men have solidified their partisan base. Romney is supported by 89% of Republicans and Obama by 88% of Democrats. Among those not affiliated with either major party, Romney leads by 16.

It says a lot when a government jobs report is so out of line with reality that no thoughtful person can take it seriously. At best the new unemployment number is a fluke; at worst it is the product of partisan hacks.

The Department of Labor reported Friday that total nonfarm payroll employment increased by a net 114,000 in September. This poor showing — it reflects a 28,000 drop from the previous month — should have resulted in unemployment increasing by a tenth of a percent. Instead, it dropped by 0.3 percent to 7.8 percent. Call that Chicago-style math.

The official jobless rate is now down to around where it was when Mr. Obama took office, though still higher than what the White House promised it would be after blowing more than a trillion on stimulus programs. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch was among the first to call shenanigans on the dramatically favorable unemployment figure, echoing a general skepticism from all but the most credulous of Mr. Obama’s defenders.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said she was “insulted” by charges that there was something fishy going on. She then betrayed her own ignorance of the facts by saying the 86,000 jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) discovered in the last two months were private-sector jobs. They were actually government hires. Private-sector employment fell last month by a net of 5,000. Manufacturing jobs were down 16,000. Mrs. Solis threw her underlings under the bus, saying “the information that I received is given to me by our professional, civil service staff in the BLS.” Perhaps these are the same BLS economists whom the Washington Free Beacon reports have contributed thousands to the Obama campaign.... ◼ MORE at the link.

Each Week, CFRW reviews one of the Propositions on the ballot. Here's the current recap, with the final chart.

PROPOSITION 30: NO!

The California Federation of Republican Women is recommending a NO vote on Prop 30.

Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s bully budgeting tactics. Governor Brown wants to raise our state’s sales tax to 7.5%, a 3.45% increase. Governor Brown also wants to raise income taxes on the highest earners, creating three new tax brackets for those making over $250,000, $300,000 and $500,000.

The Governor claims that the revenues from Prop 30 will exceed $9 billion while the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) believes that only $6.8 billion will be collected. What Governor Brown asserts is that the revenue collected from these tax increases will be used to balance the budget for education funding. Again, the LAO thinks otherwise. The revenue will go to the budget, but not necessarily to education or even to other programs that received cuts. The Legislature will be able to allocate this revenue however they see fit. And as we’ve seen with the passage of High Speed Rail funding, the Parks Department hiding reserve cash and the mismanagement of funds, the Legislature does not have the best track record for responsible budgeting.

Governor Brown has threatened to make more cuts to education if Prop 30 does not pass, yet does not clearly explain how the revenue from Prop 30 will benefit students or schools in any way.

Instead, the Governor signs over $5 billion for High Speed Rail!

The California School Boards Association said in May that Prop 30 does nothing for schools, yet Prop 30 is strongly supported by the California Teacher’s Union, California Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers among others. That the Teacher’s Unions are supporting this proposition is very telling.

Of the two “taxes for education” measures on the ballot, Prop 38 is a much more beneficial measure for California schools. Prop 30 does nothing to secure funding for education while Prop 38 ensures it.

Governor Brown and the unions are in bed together, and their illegitimate relationship is costing California! Remember to VOTE NO on Prop 30!

__________________

Prop 31 Reconsideration: NO!

The CFRW Voting Body has reconsidered our official CFRW position on Proposition 31. After reevaluating, our Voting Body decided to change our official position from “No position” to “OPPOSE.” The reality with Prop 31 is that there are good aspects to the prop, but there are really terrible aspects as well.
And we believe that the bad aspects outweigh the good. While Prop 31 has merits- It establishes a two year budget cycle. It requires the legislature to have ALL bills in print for 72 hours before a vote. There is a “pay-go” of $25 million, meaning that the legislature cannot create expenditures of $25 million or more unless an offsetting revenue source or spending cut is identified. But even the merits of Prop 31 would create a problem with the current California Legislature. A “pay-go” system only works with a responsible legislature. In California this could create programs costing $24.9 million, or fudging numbers on spending cuts, or projected revenue for the pay-go falling short. Prop 31 also calls for performance reviews for all state agencies. While this may be very necessary for California, this will create a large bureaucracy in order to over-see this large undertaking. Prop 31 would allow the Governor to cut unilaterally in a declared fiscal emergency if the legislature fails to act. This may seem like a good idea, but it gives the governor far too much power. The proposition also allows local governments to create “Community Strategic Action Plans”, allowing them to override state law or regulations and tailor them to their local needs. It would also allow localities to “tax share” and pool their tax receipts from local governments. This will create litigation galore and won’t actually help local government govern successfully. Worst of all, this is a constitutional amendment, and in California, ballot box budgeting written into our constitution has historically done more harm than good. Prop 98 (K-12 education funding) is a perfect example. California does not need another bad constitutional amendment. Prop 31 is over 8,000 words of convoluting constitutional changes and unnecessary regional governance. The CFRW OPPOSES PROP 31.

__________________

Prop 32: YES!

This proposition is perhaps the most important on the November ballot. If this passes, it will change the political game here in California. But first, some background information on Prop 32. Last October in a sneaky legislative move, Governor Brown signed SB 202 (Hancock, D). SB 202 mandates propositions will only appear on the general election ballot, no longer on both the primary and general ballots. This changed a 50-year tradition in the state that began in 1960. We speculate that Brown and the Democrats who sponsored SB 202 were prompted to act because of the Paycheck Protection Initiative, which is now this proposition. The Democrats feared that it would earn a spot on the June 5, 2012 primary ballot. They know that more Republicans vote in primary elections than Democrats. The Democrat union machine can get out the vote in general elections. But even with their trickery, this bill still has an excellent chance of passing. Prop 32 will ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates, ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them and ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions and government employees’ wages to be used for politics. Union members will still be able to give to political candidates and campaigns, but they will have to do so voluntarily, yearly, in writing. Simply put, unions will no longer be able to use their members’ money for political purposes unless the individual member allows it. As we saw in Wisconsin, once union members had this choice, many of them opted out of contributing. Large unions in California, such as the California Teacher’s Association (CTA), will not have the political power they do now if Prop 32 passes.

The CFRW supports Prop 33. It corrects a flaw in a previous auto insurance coverage proposition, where if there was a lapse in coverage, for any reason, the insurance company could increase their prices. With this prop, a Californian would still be eligible for the “continuous coverage” discount if a lapse in coverage was for military service, for a loss of employment, or if the lapse was less than 90 days. This proposition would allow for more Californians to qualify for the “continuous coverage” discount for costly auto insurance. Prop 33 is short and to the point. For these reasons, the CFRW SUPPORTS Prop 33. Be sure to read the Capitol Update each week for in-depth analysis of each of the propositions.

__________________

Prop 34: NO!

The CFRW OPPOSES Prop 34which would eliminate the death penalty. There have been 13 people executed in California since 1978. There are currently 725 inmates on death row. The voters have approved the death penalty, so why aren’t we using it? There are costs associated with repealing the death penalty that the supporters of Prop 34 did not consider, and those costs are dangerous. If Prop 34 passes, the status of 725 death row inmates would become prisoners with life without parole (or LWOP) and integrated into the general LWOP prison community. This would create a very dangerous environment in our prisons, for our prison guards, wardens, and other prisoners. The people on death row are not your common criminal. Gangs form in prisons and their crimes do not stop just because they are off the streets. Californians will be paying for these prisoner’s lifetime housing and health benefits while they continue their crime sprees. There are also many studies that find the death penalty actually deters murders, such as a study done at the University of Colorado by Professor Mocan. Also, the threat of the death penalty is a very powerful tool for our state’s District Attorneys, especially in solving murders and finding victims’ bodies. The system needs fixing, but this is not the solution. NO on PROP 34

__________________

Prop 35: YES!

The California Federation of Republican Women SUPPORTS Prop 35 which would increase penalties for human trafficking. Prop 35 would increase prison terms for those convicted for human trafficking, would require those convicted of human trafficking crimes to be put on the registered sex offenders list as well as require that all registered sex offenders disclose their internet accounts and activity. Why hasn’t California been requiring this all along? California has three cities that the FBI cites as “high intensity” for child sex trafficking- San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Other California cities are just as dangerous such as Fresno and Stockton. Prop 35 would help train law enforcement officers specifically on handling human trafficking cases and protect women and children from this most heinous exploitation. We SUPPORT Prop 35!

__________________

Prop 36: NO!

The California Federation of Republican Women OPPOSE Prop 36! Proposition 36 would revise the current Three Strikes law and would allow current convicted felons serving 25-life under Three Strikes to petition for a reduced sentence. The Three Strikes law was passed in 1994 and shortly after its passage crime in California dropped and has remained at those lower levels. Violent crimes have decreased by 18% and homicide decreased by 31% since Three Strikes' inception. Prop 36 would modify the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent". It authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not "serious" or "violent" and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose "unreasonable" risk to public safety. It would continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession" and maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation." Proponents of Prop 36 say that this would “make room for dangerous felons,” but the truth is only 6.6% of all prisoners in California are these “third strikers.” If Prop 36 passes, it would allow 4,388 “third strikers” petition the courts for a resentencing and some of these criminals could be released “without any parole or supervision.” These are criminals so dangerous they are serving 25 to life sentences as charged by a District Attorney, as convicted by a jury, as imposed by a judge, and whose legal appeals have been denied. Prop 36 would allow these same criminals ask a new judge for a reduced sentence or to be set free, some without any parole or supervision! Prop 36 is opposed by every major law enforcement organization and the California District Attorneys Association. Prop 36 is dangerous and needs to be defeated!

__________________

Prop 37: NO!

Prop 37 is another misleading initiative, written to intentionally confuse the voters. Prop 37 is billed as “the right to know”, but with all the exemptions written into the proposition, the consumer will still have no idea if the food they are purchasing is free of genetically engineered foods or not. Oddly, 2/3rds of the food consumed in California will be exempt under Prop 37. It requires labels for soy and tofu products, but milk, cheese and other dairy products are exempt. Fruit juice would require a label but alcohol that contains genetically engineered material would not. Why does pet food containing GE meat require a label but any meat for human consumption is exempt? Food sold in grocery stores requires GE labels but the same food sold in restaurants is exempt. The innumerable and complicated exceptions to the law severely undermine its credibility.

If this were truly a health or medical issue, Prop 37 would have been written by doctors or scientists. But Prop 37 was written by infamous trial lawyer James Wheaton, who stands to make massive amounts of money from lawsuits over theoretically “mislabeled” food. According to the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst Office, “in order to bring such an action (lawsuit) forward, the consumer would not be required to demonstrate any specific damage from the alleged violation.” This means that farmers, grocers, and food companies can be sued without any proof of harm to the “victims”! Yet that lack of provable damages would do nothing to slow the money flowing into the pockets of trial lawyers, away from already strained businesses and farmers.

On the other hand, foods with demonstrably fewer safety regulations from foreign counties would have no burden of proof that they are GE free; they simply have to slap a label on their products that announce as such. Why would we make ourselves additionally susceptible to inferior food, when reputable, leading health organizations across the nation have said that the use of this biotechnology is perfectly safe? Only food grown and sold in California would be held to this standard of labeling, which will drive up our food costs and be harmful for our hard working farmers and grocers. We already have many consumer safeguards in place. All “certified organic” food must already be produced without genetic altering. There are also some companies already labeling- without government mandates- that their food is GE free. Prop 37 is entirely unnecessary in the current marketplace.

Prop 37 is deceptive, but don’t take our word for it. The American Medical Association, the US Food and Drug Administration, and even the World Health Organization have all come to the conclusion that at this point in time, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered food. Other reliable news sources and organizations say so as well: the San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee, The Woodland Democrat, the San Jose Mercury News, as well as the American Council of Science and Health, and the California Chamber of Commerce all agree: Vote NO on Prop 37!

__________________

Prop 38: NO!

Prop 38 is the tax increase initiative that is in direct competition with Governor Brown’s Prop 30. Prop 38 increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years. During first four years, it allocates 60% of revenues to K–12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, it allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. Prop 38 provides K–12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input and prohibits state from directing new funds. If the CTA and other teachers unions truly cared about their students and schools, then Prop 38 would be the tax increase to support. But their motives are very transparent by supporting Prop 30; it is clear they are “in bed” with Governor Brown. The good news for taxpayers is that the more tax increases there are on a ballot, the less likely it is that any of them pass.

Here is what happens in the unlikely case that both Props 30 and 38 pass. Our state constitution says that if two or more ballot measures conflict, as these two do, the measure that has the most “yes” votes is the one that will go into effect. Prop 30’s language states that if it receives more “yes” votes, then Prop 38 will not go into effect. Prop 38’s language states that if it receives more “yes” votes, then Prop 30 will not go into effect and Governor Brown’s $6 billion trigger cuts to education will take place. Let’s make sure both of these unnecessary tax increases fail!

We were frustrated that so many women were getting a picture of Mitt from the media and negative ads that just doesn’t match up with the man we all know and worked with in Salt Lake and Massachusetts. We’re smart women; we know it’s a big country; and we know we’re only a few voices. But we also know we have insights and stories that women voters want to hear before they make up their minds – so we decided to hit the road and tell as many women as we can what Mitt Romney is really like from the perspective of the women who worked with him every day.

Amazingly, most women don’t know that Mitt had women at his side helping him turn around the Olympics in Salt Lake and fix the economy in Massachusetts. It doesn’t surprise me because I know how Mitt puts together his team. He hires the strongest talent he can find, so naturally he ends up with a lot of women. Mitt says he hires people who will “go through walls” to get the job done; the women who have worked with him over the years definitely fit that description. I worked with him for nine years and can tell you that my colleagues in Salt Lake and Massachusetts are as talented and incredible as any group of women in America.

Mitt was recognized every year he was Governor for having more women in Cabinet and senior positions than any other Governor in the country. Women made up half Mitt’s cabinet. Women were at the heart of the economic team he put together to create jobs, cut red-tape and streamline regulations and permitting. He personally chose and campaigned for his Lt. Governor – Kerry Healey – a hard-working, gracious, accomplished woman. His Chief of Staff, Beth Myers, was at the table with him giving advice and counsel throughout his administration – and she has continued to do that in the years since, as campaign manager for his 2008 campaign and as senior strategist in the campaign this time....

...For the first time in the general election, Romney seemed to realize that the presidency will not be awarded by default — that defeating Obama will require exceptional skills, strategy and ambition. And all were there when Romney needed them.

Romney was on the offensive from first to last, dominating the tone, content and flow of the debate. This seemed more than aggressiveness; something approaching authority. Romney’s attacks were genially relentless. Instead of merely criticizing Obamacare or the Dodd-Frank financial legislation, he dissected them. He fired statistics like shotgun pellets — 23 million unemployed, 1 in 6 in poverty, 50 percent of college graduates can’t find jobs. His critique was organized by a memorable theme — “trickle-down government.” (Obama’s apparent theme — a “new economic patriotism” — went entirely unexplained.)

Romney’s effective indictment of Obama’s record managed something difficult and important. It simultaneously steadied the confidence of Republicans in their own candidate while allowing Romney to adopt a more moderate, bipartisan tone on taxes, education and entitlements. This is politics successfully conducted at a high degree of difficulty....

Obama had not debated in years, and that also showed. He is a political orchid, thriving best in a hot, wet atmosphere of praise. Presented with serious, sustained criticism, he first seemed puzzled that his idiom wasn’t working properly. Then came the avalanche of tweeted adjectives: annoyed, grim, unhappy, disengaged, glaring, defensive. For me, the low point came when he protested, “I’m going to make an important point here, Jim.” Show, as they say, don’t tell. Obama’s words were instantly forgettable. But his performance will be remembered, studied and mocked for its body language. He looked down. He looked away. It was the surrender of the averted gaze.

The presidential debate on Wednesday of this week was exciting to watch! Governor Romney showed the President and the rest of the nation what real leadership and vision can be for our country!

We Can Win the White House by Calling Swing State Voters! Your choice: either make phone calls now or have Obama for 4 more years!!

Consider these key facts:

The Presidential race is very close.

The race will be won or lost in the swing states.

A total of 8 swing states have early/absentee voting and voters in 4 of them have already started voting!!

We need to call swing state voters NOW! HERE ARE 2 WAYS YOU CAN CALL VOTERS:

1. Call today from home or wherever you are using a computer and phone. To make calls for Romney, go to ◼ www.MittRomney.com and move your cursor on the Get Involved Tab and click on Call From Home (or for more detailed instructions and for suggested swing states to call, go to ◼ www.OperationSwingState.org and then click the Romney-Ryan tab). As of today, we suggest you create one or more accounts for these swing states (see our website for instructions on how to do this): Virginia, Ohio, and Florida

Be a part of this vital nationwide winning effort! Operation Swing State is a 2012 nationwide, grassroots, unfunded, all-volunteer online phone-calling campaign to take back the White House and take back America! www.OperationSwingState.org

The California Federation of Republican Women OPPOSE Prop 36! Proposition 36 would revise the current Three Strikes law and would allow current convicted felons serving 25-life under Three Strikes to petition for a reduced sentence. The Three Strikes law was passed in 1994 and shortly after its passage crime in California dropped and has remained at those lower levels. Violent crimes have decreased by 18% and homicide decreased by 31% since Three Strikes' inception. Prop 36 would modify the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent". It authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not "serious" or "violent" and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose "unreasonable" risk to public safety. It would continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession" and maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation." Proponents of Prop 36 say that this would “make room for dangerous felons,” but the truth is only 6.6% of all prisoners in California are these “third strikers.” If Prop 36 passes, it would allow 4,388 “third strikers” petition the courts for a resentencing and some of these criminals could be released “without any parole or supervision.” These are criminals so dangerous they are serving 25 to life sentences as charged by a District Attorney, as convicted by a jury, as imposed by a judge, and whose legal appeals have been denied. Prop 36 would allow these same criminals ask a new judge for a reduced sentence or to be set free, some without any parole or supervision! Prop 36 is opposed by every major law enforcement organization and the California District Attorneys Association. Prop 36 is dangerous and needs to be defeated!

Make sure you and your friends are registered to vote - Many states have voter registration deadlines approaching quickly. Check out our ◼ Facebook application to get started today and share with friends.

Vote early or by mail - Check with your local election office to vote early or by mail. If you have received an absentee ballot make sure to fill it out and turn it in as soon as possible!

Make 10 quick phone calls to battleground voters - The Social Victory Center also has a ◼ phone from home tool that allows you to make calls right from your home. These calls are quick, easy, and extremely important in helping to get out the vote.

The volunteer efforts that you make over the next month - from knocking on doors to talking to neighbors - will be vital to our success in November.

Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support....

Earlier this week, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and another member of the committee wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listing 13 incidents leading up to the attack, ranging from IED and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.

“Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all the above incidents?” they asked Secretary Clinton, requesting written responses by Oct. 8. “If not, why not? If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?”

The subject line of the email, from Miki Rankin, the post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia, reads “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

The Romney campaign’s initial statement summed up the general reaction on the right: “This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. The results of President Obama’s failed policies are staggering – 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we’ll get another four years like the last four years. If I’m elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone.”

As always with these kinds of jobs reports… the devil is in the details.

So a 7.8% unemployment number will be tossed around and praised by the media and their allies in the left. But, as seen above, the use of that number to spin a positive message is incredibly disingenuous.

Overall, the race is deadlocked with Obama over Romney 50 percent to 49 percent, according to the poll taken Thursday night.

But among the stunning 92 percent of all voters in the state who say that they are certain to go to the polls on Election Day, Romney leads 51 percent to 48 percent. And among the 83 percent who have already made up their minds how they will vote, Romney is ahead 52 percent to 48 percent.

..."If this keeps up, I'll be looking at $5-a-gallon gas by next Thursday," said Ali Mazarei, who owns an Arco station in Riverside County. On Thursday, Mazarei was charging $4.52 for a gallon of regular gasoline, up from $4.27 on Wednesday and $4.21 on Tuesday.

"I really don't have any choice here, and I won't be making money at $4.52 a gallon," he said.

...it was Obamacare that already changed Medicare as we know it, transforming it literally into a death trap for seniors. Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion over the next 10 years alone, mostly by slashing Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. And that is just a downpayment on what is to come....

...The massive turnout was proof that Mitt Romney's stunning victory in Wednesday's debate struck a spark of excitement, reviving a campaign that had sustained a month-long battering of negative media coverage. "The crowd was feeding off the energy from last night," said Amy Whitaker, who drove from Amherst County to attend the rally. "A lot of us didn't get to sleep until 2 in the morning, we were so hyped up.… We were just surprised [Romney] did so well, and how bad Obama did."...

..."Virtually no serious budget analyst agreed" with the President's claim. And on debate night, ABC News called the claim "mostly fiction."

Several others have noted that Obama's claims are wrong, too. But, unfortunately, too many Old Media sources continue to repeat the President's claim without any critical analysis.

Of course, that wasn't the only thing that Obama said in Wednesday's debate that is either false or misleading. For one, the President's jobs number claim is misleading and his claim that Romney's plan would raise taxes on the middle class is simply false.

Because isolation and insularity have worked out so well for him thus far, right? ◼ Politico quotes an unnamed Obama confidant on President Eye-candy's post-debate demeanor. Having that famous first-rate temperament, he was just the right level of angry:

Nobody had to tell President Barack Obama he had whiffed when he walked off the stage in Denver Wednesday night — nor was he in the mood for a lot of advice. “You could tell he was pissed,” said a person close to the president.

About 12 million of the 67 mil who watched President Obama square off with GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney at the University of Denver were aged 18-34 years. Nearly 31 million of them were 55 years or older, Nielsen reported Thursday.

According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

If the term “Doodad Pro” means anything to you, none of this will come as a surprise.... If the term “Doodad Pro” doesn’t mean anything to you, get up to speed so that you have the background needed to appreciate this new story if/when it drops. Start with Patrick Ruffini’s post from the end of the 2008 campaign explaining how lax security on Obama’s campaign donation website created an opportunity for fraudulent donations. The Washington Post picked up the story a few days later, reporting that the campaign not only was accepting money from untraceable prepaid credit cards but that it “had chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.” Team O’s defense at the time was that they preferred to manually eliminate any bogus donations that flowed in by scrutinizing their books afterward and rejecting the ones that looked suspicious. Why they’d prefer a time-consuming process like that when they could screen donations before they were accepted with online security measures, as many other campaigns do, wasn’t clear.

Gasoline station owners in the Los Angeles area including Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) are beginning to shut pumps because of supply shortages that have driven wholesale fuel prices to record highs.

Costco’s outlet in Simi Valley, 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles, ran out of regular gasoline yesterday and was selling premium fuel at the price of regular, Jeff Cole, Costco’s vice president of gasoline, said by telephone. The company hasn’t been able to find enough unbranded summer-grade gasoline to keep its stations supplied, he said....

Spot, or wholesale, gasoline in Los Angeles climbed 30 cents to $1.45 a gallon over gasoline futures traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s the highest level for the fuel since at least November 2007, when Bloomberg began publishing prices there. The premium has surged $1 this week. On an outright basis, the fuel jumped to $4.3396 a gallon. More at the link.

When asked for a list of endorsed candidates for the Voter Information section of sample ballots, county registrars of voters (including Humboldt’s) received an August 14 letter from the chairman of the California Republican Party that omitted presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
“The letter cited sections of the State Elections Code governing the matter. Apparently, a printing deadline required that the list be submitted prior to the Republican National Convenion when Gov. Romney was formally nominated, so the CRP did not include him. Ironically, the later Democrat convention made the deadline,” said Peter Hannaford, chairman of the Humboldt County Republican Party. “This technicality is unfortunate,” he continued, “because the Republican party is solidly behind the Romney-Ryan ticket.”

Mitt Romney: "...what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working. And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we've gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work. The path we’re taking is not working. It is time for a new path....”

"I just think he has a terrible record to defend," top Romney adviser Stuart Stevens said of the president "They've hidden behind almost a billion dollars in campaign expenditures. Now, you can't hide behind ads, you can't hide behind surrogates, you can't have Bill Clinton step in for you on that stage."

"I don't think he had a particularly bad debate," Stevens concluded. "He's had a bad four years."

Romney painted Obama’s first term as a time of rising poverty, slowing economic growth and struggle for millions of Americans. He pushed his own plans to lower taxes and bring down the federal deficit, saying his approach would revive the sputtering economy.

... what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working. And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we've gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work. The path we’re taking is not working. It is time for a new path....”

If Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney didn’t win the first of three presidential debates outright, he more than covered the spread. He was personable, funny, and relentlessly on the attack against a heavily favored Obama.

The president looked peeved and flat as he carried a conversation, for the first time in four years, with somebody telling him he’s wrong.

Matthews then demanded that President Obama start watching cable news, specifically his program.

"Where was Obama tonight? He should watch -- well, not just Hardball, Rachel, he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There's a hot debate going on in this country. You know where it's been held? Here on this network is where we're having the debate," Matthews said.

"We have our knives out," Matthews said, admitting his network is trying their best to defend Obama and his policies. "We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in their disarmed."

Not since Jimmy Carter faced Ronald Reagan has the U.S. presidency been so embarrassingly represented in public. Actually, that’s an insult to Jimmy Carter.

The split screen was most devastating. Mitt Romney spoke forthrightly, with carefully studied facts and details at the ready. He looked right at the president and accused him of being miles out of his depth.

Mr. Obama? His eyes were glued to his lectern, looking guilty and angry and impatient with all the vagaries of Democracy. This debate was seriously chaffing him.

What exactly was Mr. Obama’s strategy here? Did he figure with so many people unemployed in this abomination of an economy he should go for the sympathy vote? Like voters could relate to a guy who is just scared pantsless that he is about to lose his job?...

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

It occurs to me that last night’s debate was a shock to both left and right.

The left was shocked because they had really believed Obama’s hype, and he fell so far below their expectations—although perhaps it would be more accurate to say he failed so abysmally to live up to their beliefs.

The right was shocked because they really believed the negative media spin about Romney and he rose so far above their expectations—although perhaps it would be more accurate to say he succeeded beyond their wildest dreams....

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Daily Caller came out today with a remarkable speech from Obama in June 2007, a short 9 months before Obama’s campaign race speech. Let’s just say the two a very different. Tonight Hannity presented a clip comparing a few elements of the two speeches. Obama’s hypocrisy is astounding. At the end of the clip you’ll hear Hannity and Carlsen wonder which Obama is the real Obama.

...The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event...

Obama gave the speech in the middle of a hotly-contested presidential primary season, but his remarks escaped scrutiny. Reporters in the room seem to have missed or ignored his most controversial statements. The liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan linked to what he described as a “transcript” of the speech, which turned out not to be a transcript at all, but instead the prepared remarks provided by the campaign. In fact, Obama, who was not using a teleprompter, deviated from his script repeatedly and at length, ad libbing lines that he does not appear to have used before any other audience during his presidential run. A local newspaper posted a series of video clips of the speech, but left out key portions. No complete video of the Hampton speech was widely released.

Tomorrow night President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will meet in Denver, Colorado, to debate domestic policy. The first point on Romney's five point economic plan is for the United States to become energy independent. In his first term, Obama has been no friend to the oil industry, but has taken credit for its success--a 4.5% growth in 2011, while overall GDP grew by 1.7%. Here are some talking points to consider before Romney and Obama spar over energy policy tomorrow night:

◼ Obama planned to open 75 percent of our offshore oil and gas resources for production, but only areas that have already been explored are included in that figure. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), 85 percent of all offshore areas are still off-limits.

◼ The oil industry has a difficult time obtaining leases and then producing on that land because of regulations, slowing production. For example, the API reports that the oil industry spent $2.6 billion to obtain 487 leases in the Chukchi Sea, but so far the Obama administration has not allowed any wells to be drilled on that land.

◼ In February, Obama famously claimed that the United States only has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but he did not take into account our undiscovered resource potential or our shale gas resources, which are ten times the amount of our current oil reserves. These resources put the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia in the amount of oil and natural gas that can be recovered.

◼ Obama calls for an end to subsidizing oil companies, but in truth "there is not a single targeted tax credit in the Internal Revenue Code available to the oil and gas industry," according to the API. The oil and gas industry is allowed the same tax deductions that other businesses take, but at a lower rate. All U.S. manufacturers take a 9 percent tax deduction on their costs, while the oil and gas industry is allowed a 6 percent tax deduction.

◼ While making it more difficult for the oil industry to conduct business, the solar and wind industry received $9 billion in taxpayer subsidies between 2009 and 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal. These are direct handouts from taxpayer coffers, unlike the tax deductions the oil industry receives.

◼ While the oil industry struggles to build wells on land it already has leases for, the Department of Interior is opening 19 million acres for solar installations, which is a collection of land larger than Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont combined, according to the Wall Street Journal.

◼ Obama's 2013 budget called for raising taxes on the oil industry by $85 billion.

For more reading on the disparity of treatment for the oil industry vs. the solar and wind industry, read ◼ Big Oil, Bigger Taxes and ◼ The Solar Painted Desert from the Wall Street Journal. Check out the American Petroleum Institute's pamphlet ◼ Energy Myths & Facts for a breakdown of some of Obama's claims about the oil industry.

Planned Parenthood Begins Ad Blitz Against Romney

In its Tuesday, October 2, 2012 issue, The Hill newspaper reported that "Planned Parenthood's political wing is targeting Mitt Romney." The Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Planned Parenthood Votes have prepared a new slew of anti-Romney messaging efforts. Both groups have been running ads against Romney and will renew their efforts against him starting with Colorado, ahead of the first debate on Wednesday.

Colorado is considered a swing state and its female voters may very well be decisive in the presidential race. Between the two Planned Parenthood groups, they plant to target television, mobile and on-line ads, and will hold a rally on Tuesday. The group also intends to place a large, movable chalk board on which passers-by can paint questions they have for Governor Romney to answer.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg has replied that Obama has "made it more difficult for women to start businesses, keep more money in the bank, or see their children graduate with good jobs on the horizon...despite what the Obama campaign says, women are concerned about what's happened over the last four years--and they can't afford another four years of the same."

October Debate Schedule

There are three presidential debates this month before the election on Tuesday, November 6. Here is a schedule of the debates and their topics:

◼ October 3, 2012: The candidates will discuss domestic policy with questions from Jim Lehrer, the host of NewsHour on PBS. Jim Lehrer has opened all of the presidential debates since 1988. This debate will be held at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado, starting at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

◼ October 11, 2012: This is the only debate featuring the Vice Presidential candidates, who will discuss foreign and domestic policy at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. It will start at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time with Martha Raddatz, an ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent, as moderator.

◼ October 16, 2012: The candidates will meet at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York for a town hall meeting debate on foreign and domestic policy. It will be moderated by Candy Crowley, the CNN Chief Political Correspondent. The Gallup organization will select undecided voters as the town hall meeting participants. The debate will start at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

◼ October 22, 2012: The candidates will meet at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, to discuss foreign policy. Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation on CBS, will moderate. Like the previous debates, this one starts at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

All of the debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. To visit their website and learn more about the history of these debates, ◼ click here. To learn more about the debates this month, check out the ◼ 2012 Election Central.

Contact Form

Name

Email
*

Message
*

VISITORS

HRWF Files and PDFs

WELCOME!

We bring you news and views for Republicans - from Humboldt County to Washington DC - news, opinion and analysis from the best reporters, columnists and bloggers. A one stop shop with links to local, state and national groups, contact info for the Board of Supervisors, the City Councils, Planning Commission, and more.

“Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” .....Robert A. Heinlein quotes (American science-fiction Writer, 1907-1988)